Immaculate Conception

[MMurphy]

Magestrium? Me? nah you got the wrong take on things.
Also we do not have the Westburo Church up here in Australia. They would be run out of town quick smart.
My point was/is simply that if someone wants to fly the "I'm an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ" flag, fine, OK, so show us fruit becoming of an apostle. And the fruit of an apostle is not raising money for the poor and running soup kitchens. These things are important, but not the work of an apostle as the passage from Acts clearly shows.
Sorry to say it, but you reply seems to be very immature. Please stick to the issues, as we all should, we should get back to Mary and her need for deliverance from sin.....or not.

Look, your the one purporting that your interpretation of the Bible is infallible. Your pushing a doctrine that because we see the apostles work a certain way in the first century then that's somehow the way Christians should act now. You can't even recognize the context or accept that there is more than one way to view a story. Your being argumentative about the approach of prima scriptura which makes the discussion about a theory such as this difficult.

The hypothesis that I have laid out is based on biblical doctrine that is a few times removed from scripture. I assume that such things as God being intolerant to sin are fairly wide held beliefs, and if you want a biblical analysis of it, I can provide that for you, but you don't seem to pick your fights very well.

It comes down to whether or not you think that the conception of Christ in Mary's womb was intimate enough to require her to be absent of sin. For the sake of rejecting the immaculate conception, indeed some will say no. But hopefully you can at least understand the theological basis for the doctrine. I personally don't believe any of the doctrines surrounding Mary are strictly important, but I find the theological bases for them interesting.

Also, BTW, the WBC is what I see as fundamentalist, literalist, sola scriptura taken to the extreme, which is why I use it when I sense a baseless assertion--like charity somehow discredits spiritual leaders.

 

[calvin]

It comes down to whether or not you think that the conception of Christ in Mary's womb was intimate enough to require her to be absent of sin.

Well no I do not. based on my limited knowledge of such things, the flesh of an embryo and that of the mother are not, or at least are not always compatible. The blood of the Mother is not, or at least not always compatible with that of the baby she is carrying.... blood type, rh factor. So it seems to me that the baby Jesus was nourished by nutrients supplied from Mary's blood but those nutrients were neither steeped in sin or not.... they were just nutrients.
Besides, sin is a spiritual thing not in itself corporeal, it only finds expression in the physical.
I for one will not buy into the idea that Mary had to be sinless in order to carry the baby Jesus.
The Old Testament teaches and Paul affirms that everything is to be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Can you produce two or three (independent) witnesses that say Mary was conceived immaculately and that she was without sin and that she was assumed? Get back to me with your satisfactory evidence and then I will believe your idea.

 

[calvin]

Actually MMurphy I consider your replies are becoming more and more aggressive. To that end I will withdraw from this discussion as I do not want to be responsible even in part for the closure of this thread.
bye.

 

[JustPassingThru]

Actually Calvin is correct, all the fetus receives from the mother is nutrients, all of the baby's blood is produced in the marrow of it's bones, so not one drop of Mary's sinful blood was circulation in the sinless body of Jesus.

Gen 5:3 and Paul explains to us that sin is passed on to the children by the father, not the mother, so since Mary had a father she was a sinner, just like the rest of the human race. Luke tells us the name of Mary's father was Heli Luke 3:24 and then proceeds to take her genealogy back to Adam, to show the promise made to Eve had been fulfilled.

Blessings,

Gene

 

[KingJ]

This was an RCC doctrine I never thought I would come to accept, but lately I've found it might in fact be plausible.

In this doctrine, Mary, Mother of God, is born without original sin and goes on to live a sinless life thereafter. I don't believe in original sin, but this doctrine came to make sense since there can be no sin in the presence of God. In that case, to carry and birth our pure Lord, she indeed would have needed to be sinless herself.

Not sure if its been said, but sanctified = sinless in God's eyes whilst not necessarily sinless in ours. We are all sinners but when sanctified can boldly enter His presence Heb 10:19. Mary was sanctified. The same way Moses was when he met God.

1 Thess 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Tim 2:21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

 

[Dave Lucas]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Bible should not be believed in. However, understand the Catholic perspective is that the Bible and the consensus of Catholic Bishops both constitute the word of God. Bishops are, in their view, successors of the apostles.

Yet the Catholic bishops are no longer the Order of Melchizedek. This is THE ONLY order given power by The Holy Spirit to spread the Good News. The high priest of the order is Jesus, no one else. The priests of this order are ordained by the Holy Spirit ALONE.

To receive ordination in most of the present denominations of Christendom you must be ordained, like The Levites, by a group of men, not the Holy Spirit. The current priesthood of the Catholic church, and most churches now, are made up of those taught, approved and ordained by the traditions of men based upon scripture and non-scriptural literature. Some of that non-scriptural literature is steeped in tradition to control how people view the clergy, not at all concerned with The Holy Spirit. Rather to how they will be seen pious by men.

This goes right back to the Levitical ways of the pharisees.

The consensus of tradition is meaningless to God. It is ONLY for men. And their reward will ONLY be by men. God will not reward it.

 

[Dave Lucas]

A corollary exists to bolster the view of Mary being a sinner and still producing Jesus.

That example is Judas.

Judas betrayed Jesus through his fallen nature. Yet one could argue well Judas did what God intended and should be justified by that as he followed the will of God or else nothing of what Jesus did would mean anything.

The problem lay that Judas COULD NOT be justified in his actions. BUT God can take any evil and use it for good. Turn it on itself and have righteousness prevail.

So Mary could still me a sinner, and she was as someone whom had not been saved by Jesus, and still produce the sinless Jesus for the very same reason that God could turn the wickedness of Judas to victory.

 

[KingJ]

I agree with you Dave. I just want to propose that Judas did not fulfill any will of God. It is just the way it was. Was Judas needed to betray Jesus? No!

 

[Dave Lucas]

I agree with you Dave. I just want to propose that Judas did not fulfill any will of God. It is just the way it was. Was Judas needed to betray Jesus? No!

No he was needed.

Jesus gave Judas the chance to turn away. He did not. God used that wickedness to fulfill his plans and turn what was ill to good.

If not Judas there was another that would have taken his place.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

ATTENTION ALL:

I don't expect anyone who doesn't accept the immaculate conception to be turned around by a forum. For many people who didn't accept to to later accepting it, it wasn't a matter of being worn down, but often takes a lot of time to research, review, and logically conclude that it is valid. No one here who rejects it will change their minds.

And for anyone trying to change the minds of us who do accept it, likewise, it will not take place overnight. Speaking personally, if it took me a couple of years even after I decided to become a Catholic to completely accept it as valid, it certainly won't take a couples of posts.

Both sides will have Scriptural support to back their claim, and both will then carry on into arguing what Church authority is and isn't, along with the argument of Sola Scriptura.

Those who reject it, only if you wanted to legitimately try to understand it, it will take you much time. And those of us who do accept it, it will take far more than a thread to change this.

All I intended to do was explain what it is and clear the misconceptions. I never had any intention to change anyone's minds because it simply won't be done. If anyone on any side is trying to do that, then they really are wasting their time.

 

[CCW95A]

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

How were these "traditions" passed?

15* Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

They were not passed down from mouth to mouth, person to person. They were given by the Apostle Paul either by what he spoke directly to them in person or by what he himself wrote directly to Timothy in his letters to him.

 

[CCW95A]

Not a single one of those scriptures says we should reject the teachings of God which are outside of the Bible.

That was not the point. The point was every thing is confirmed and compared to ONLY what is written. Anything that is written outside the Bible which we hold in our hands is out side truth.

 

[Major]

All great passages, and they all support the importance of Scripture and that they are all valid...but none of them support Sola Scriptura. Opposing Sola Scriptura doesn't mean opposing Scripture itself. I consider myself a devout Bible Christian in fact.

We will have to disagree then. It is my opinion that they do support Sola Scriptura.

As was posted by CCW95A.........

Mat 4:4...But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

2 Ti 3:16... ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2 Ti 3:17 ...hat the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Now allow me to address the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

In all due respect and love and in no way do I intend this to be a confrontational or agumenitive question but Larry, if you were not a committed Catholic with a preconceived opinion, would not the verses posted in fact tell you exactly what we are saying about Sola Scriptura?

You see, IMO you are coming at this with a fixed thought and that does not allow you to grasp what the Scriptures say right in front of you.

 

[Major]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Bible should not be believed in. However, understand the Catholic perspective is that the Bible and the consensus of Catholic Bishops both constitute the word of God. Bishops are, in their view, successors of the apostles.

Correct! That is the 800 pound gorilla my friends. THAT is why my Catholics friends can not accept Sols Scriptura because it rejects the Bishops and Pope's words as successors!

I have been wanting to point that out for along time but I felt like a Catholic believer should be the one to say it.

The Bible truth, like it or not is that there are no Apostles today and have not been since the last one passed away. WHY???????
from John MacArthur's book, "Strange Fire".....

Because First, it would be impossible for any contemporary Christian to meet the biblical qualifications required for someone to be considered an apostle. The New Testament articulates at least three necessary criteria:

(1) an apostle had to be a physical eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8);
(2) an apostle had to be personally appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2, 24; 10:41; Gal. 1:1);
(3) an apostle had to be able to authenticate his apostolic appointment with miracu- lous signs (Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 8:14; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4).

Those qualifications alone conclusively demonstrate that there are no apostles in the church today. No living person has seen the risen Christ with his or her own eyes; no one is able to perform miraculous signs like those done by the apostles in the book of Acts (cf. Acts 3:3–11; 5:15–16; 9:36–42; 20:6–12; 28:1–6); and—in spite of presumptuous claims to the contrary— no one in the modern church has been personally and directly appointed as an apostle by the Lord Jesus.

Now that is what the Bible says! Again, I did not have anything to do with the writings. I just read them and accept them. However,
the doctrine of Traditions is going to force a lot of you to reject them and yell at me. So be it. I just changed my underwear this week, so let
her go.

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

That was not the point. The point was every thing is confirmed and compared to ONLY what is written. Anything that is written outside the Bible which we hold in our hands is out side truth.

That is intellectually dishonest. God's word is God's word, and you have elected to believe it only from one source. That is your choice, but you should not be critical of Christians who still hold to the teachings of God's word through the church.

 

[Major]

There is a problem of course. First Corinthians was written before both Luke and Mathew, and Paul presumably spoke of the scripture the church already had. It was certainly not clear that the Gospels were scripture, and it required the early Church to determine which books were and which weren't. In that case, the Bible is too a product of tradition, as these are the books we "traditionally" accept as canonical.

So by that you are saying that it was NOT the Holy Spirit who was involved in the production of the New Test?

And while you are correct in what you say about the dates of the writings, the assumption then is that Matthew and Luke were drawn from stories because of tradition.

Are you aware that the authors also had at their disposal the Jewish scriptures, both as book-scrolls (Greek translations of Isaiah, the Psalms etc.) and in the form of "testimony collections" (collections of excerpts). It is the opinion of most scholars that the books were written and then complied later. All these sources were at least mostly in Greek; although a few scholars hold that some of these source documents may have been Greek translations of older Hebrew or Aramaic sources. Just something to think about.

 

[Major]

Magestrium holds that sacred traditions also come directly from God.

We are all not seeing the problem that exists with "Traditions of men" as compared to the Word of God.

ALL MEN ARE SINNERS!!!........Romans 3:23 is one of many to confirm that.

ALL MEN ARE LIARS!!!.............Psalms 116:11 is one of many to confirm that.

That includes Mary and the Pope and Billy Graham and Charles Spurgeon and the Apostles John and Paul and John Calvin and Major.

We ALL are sinners and I will be dadgummed if I am going to place my eternal existence on something a man said and then 50 other men repeated it. Do you really want to do that??? Listen, 6 people can see that same thing and then tell the story in 6 different ways. Who then is correct?

I may listen to what is said but if it does not agree with the Written Word of God then it is rejected by me. But that is just me!!!!

You are free to choose what you want to do.

By the way.......I went fishing yesterday with my grandson in the St. Johns river. I was amazed when he pulled in a 100 pound Great White shark. We were going to take a picture but I dropped the camera into the river. But I assure you that it really happened!!!

Do you believe that? If not, why not? I am a Christian, I go to church and I pray and I am well know in the community as a Godly man and I even post things on the internet that sound really good some times and have in fact produced a few commentaries and sermons etc.

 

[Major]

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional form, i.e. logical, written sentences. God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.
Thus, there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

In the New Testament, it is the written word of God, and that alone, to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” as for example, in Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” In stating “It is written,” the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The

Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18:.....................
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”

People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.”

Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

 

[Major]

Magestrium holds that sacred traditions also come directly from God.

What book and verse?????

 

[Major]

A swing... and a miss. Again, nothing you have copied there supports sola scriptura.

But you are playing baseball and we are playing football!